[OSM-legal-talk] Updates to ODbL related Wiki pages and outstanding issues

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Fri Feb 27 22:55:13 GMT 2009


I have been through the wiki pages that relate to the ODbL and updated  
them where I can.

I have updated the name of the license to OdBL on all pages (I think).  
I have updated the links to the license itself to point to  
OpenDataCommons not OpenContentLawyer in all cases (I think).

I have also done some more work on the Use Cases page to make the  
discussion points clearer. I have moved the legal council comments to  
be directly below the Use Case is all cases and in some cases have  
responded to questions. I have also moved the Wikimapia Use Case to  
the negative Use Case list from the positive list. There is another  
Use Case in the negative list relating to WIkipedia which I think  
belongs in the Positive Use Case list but am waiting for any comments  
on that one before moving it.

Here are the list of pages I believe are be relevant to the ODbL  
license going forward.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Open_Data_Licence

Work that still needs to be done...

I don't have the knowledge to update the Time Line page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Timeline 
). I encourage someone within the licensing team to update this page  
and reconcile it with the new 'Implementation Plan' page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan 
). In what way are these pages serving different purposes? Should one  
be deleted and should any relevant content be transferred to the other?

A new blank 'Implementation Issues' page as been created (and is  
referred to from the email announcement. Does this supersede the 'Open  
Issues' page and should the content be moved to is from that page or  
is it seen as being for something different? Could someone from the  
license team clarify.

There are a number of important issues on the 'Open Issues' page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Open_Issues 
). I suggest we build on this list in the coming days as required. I  
have added an open question about 'who's feature is it' for license  
transfer purposes. Are we to get any comment from the legal council or  
the licensing team on any of these?

Regards,



Peter





More information about the legal-talk mailing list